Psycho-Demographic Analysis of the Facebook Rainbow Campaign

Over the past decade, online social media has had a tremendous impact on the way people engage in social activism. For instance, about 26M Facebook users expressed their support in upholding the cause of marriage equality by overlaying their profile pictures with rainbow-colored filters. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of users changed their profile pictures to a black dot condemning incidents of sexual violence in India. This act of demonstrating support for social causes by changing online profile pictures is being referred to as pictivism. In this paper, we analyze the psycho-demographic profiles, social networking behavior, and personal interests of users who participated in the Facebook Rainbow campaign. Our study is based on a sample of about 800K detailed profiles of Facebook users combining questionnaire-based psychological scores with Facebook profile data. Our analysis provides detailed insights into psycho-demographic profiles of the campaign participants. We found that personality traits such as openness and neuroticism are both positively associated with the likelihood of supporting the campaign, while conscientiousness exhibited a negative correlation. We also observed that females, religious disbelievers, democrats and adults in the age group of 20 to 30 years are more likely to be a part of the campaign. Our research further confirms the findings of several previous studies which suggest that a user is more likely to participate in an online campaign if a large fraction of his/her friends are already doing so. We also developed machine learning models for predicting campaign participation. Users' personal interests, approximated by Facebook user like activity, turned out to be the best indicator of campaign participation. Our results demonstrated that a predictive model which leverages the aforementioned features accurately identifies campaign participants (AUC=0.76).

[1]  R. Larsen,et al.  The Satisfaction with Life Scale , 1985, Journal of personality assessment.

[2]  G. Herek Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences , 1988 .

[3]  R. Eyerman,et al.  Social Movements , 2019, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Music and Culture.

[4]  J. Rust,et al.  Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological Assessment , 1989 .

[5]  A. Yang Trends: Attitudes Toward Homosexuality , 1997 .

[6]  G Saucier,et al.  Isms and the structure of social attitudes. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  J. Raven The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[9]  S Stark,et al.  Fitting Item Response Theory Models to Two Personality Inventories: Issues and Insights , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[10]  G. Herek Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men , 2002 .

[11]  John A. Johnson,et al.  Implementing a five-factor personality inventory for use on the internet , 2005 .

[12]  Robert M. Gonyea Self‐reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations , 2005 .

[13]  Claudio Barbaranelli,et al.  Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice , 2006 .

[14]  John A. Johnson,et al.  The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures ☆ , 2006 .

[15]  Tien-Tsung Lee,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Gays and Lesbians , 2006, Journal of homosexuality.

[16]  Wendy Cadge,et al.  Religion and Public Opinion about Same-Sex Marriage , 2006 .

[17]  M. P. Galupo,et al.  Development and Validation of the Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale , 2007, Journal of homosexuality.

[18]  Jessica Gifford Social Psychology of Religion , 2008 .

[19]  R. Andersen,et al.  Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981-2000 , 2008 .

[20]  James D. Wright,et al.  Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage in States Undergoing Marriage Law Transformation , 2008 .

[21]  J. Quin Monson,et al.  The Religion Card Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election , 2008 .

[22]  Heather L. Corliss,et al.  Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation , 2009, Journal of youth and adolescence.

[23]  Alina Mungiu-Pippidi,et al.  Moldova's "Twitter Revolution" , 2009 .

[24]  James C. Garand,et al.  Morality, Equality, or Locality: Analyzing the Determinants of Support for Same-sex Marriage , 2010 .

[25]  Darren E. Sherkat,et al.  Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988-2008 , 2011 .

[26]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  The Dynamics of Protest Recruitment through an Online Network , 2011, Scientific reports.

[27]  Summer Harlow,et al.  Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline , 2012, New Media Soc..

[28]  Pushmeet Kohli,et al.  Manifestations of user personality in website choice and behaviour on online social networks , 2013, Machine Learning.

[29]  M. De Domenico,et al.  The Anatomy of a Scientific Rumor , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[30]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  The Geospatial Characteristics of a Social Movement Communication Network , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  T. Graepel,et al.  Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Kevin Lewis,et al.  The Structure of Online Activism , 2014 .

[33]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Diffusion of Support in an Online Social Movement: Evidence from the Adoption of Equal-Sign Profile Pictures , 2015, CSCW.

[34]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Global Diffusion via Cascading Invitations: Structure, Growth, and Homophily , 2015, WWW.

[35]  S. Gosling,et al.  Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. , 2015, The American psychologist.

[36]  Gary Hsieh,et al.  How Activists Are Both Born and Made: An Analysis of Users on Change.org , 2015, CHI.

[37]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[39]  Macarena Saez,et al.  Same-Sex Marriage in the United States , 2015 .

[40]  Charles Tilly,et al.  Social movements, 1768-2012 , 2015 .